Corpus-Paul

["David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT csi.com>]

On Fri, 28 May 1999, "Jon Peter" <jnp AT home.com>
said:

>>An key point about Paul's views on Torah in Galatians is perhaps being
overlooked in the current discussions, and it is that the Hebrew Bible
presents two incompatible and contradictory covenants. It is this dichotomy
that Paul is resolving here with his exegesis.

The Abrahamic covenant described in Gen.. 17 is lacking, of course, in any
Torah. It permits easy conversion by any male solely on the condition of
becoming circumcised (v 10, 14). It is so inclusive, in fact, that it is
described as intended for "many nations" (Gen. 17.4,6 and Gal 3.8)  In
direct
contrast, the Sinaitic covenant introduces laws as an obligation signified
by circumcision.  (A similar distinction on covenants is in GJohn 7.22)

Paul refers to this split of two covenants explicitly by saying that Gen..
17
is for "free" people of "Jerusalem" and is personified in or by Christ. The
2nd, Torahnic covenant is for the children of the "slave" (douleuo) in
Arabia (Gal 4.21-31).

Paul concludes his exegesis of Genesis 17ff by saying that now the legally
liberated must "cast out (ekballo) the [slave] handmade and her son"
(Gal.4.30 = Gen. 21.10).

Not only is Paul saying that Law-keeping is unnecessary for Jew or Gentile,
but those who would cling to it must be expelled in accord with the
Promise!<<

I am not so convinced that Gal 4:21-31 is a literary unity. If it is not a
unity, then strength of your argument will be diminished. There is a
disruption in the discourse between vs 23 & vs 28. The interjection, vss
24-26, takes its natural conclusion in vss 29-31. If dissected for the
purposes of analysis, the passage looks like this:

"Gal 4:21  Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?
22  For it is written (Gen. 16:15-18:15; 21:1-21) that Abraham had two sons,
one [Ishmael] by a slave [Hagar] and one [Isaac] by a free woman [Sarah]. 23
But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the
free woman through promise. 24 - 31  [...]. 28  Now we, brethren, like
Isaac, are children of promise. 29-31  […] "

This is straightforward enough, and is related to the earlier passages (Gal
2:15  "We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, 16a  yet
who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith
16b  [...], 16c  even we have believed 16d  [...], 16e  in order to be
justified by faith" and Gal 3:15  "To give a human example, brethren: no one
annuls even a man's will, or adds to it, once it has been ratified.  16a
Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring.  16b  [...]. 17
This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years
afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to
make the promise void. 18  For if the inheritance is by the law, it is no
longer by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise." and 3:29 "29a
And if you are 29b  [...] 29c  really Abraham's offspring, (you are) heirs
according to promise").

I would detect the development of an argument here: a. that even Jews who
observe the law are still actually justified by their faith in the promises
God made to Abraham's offspring, b. Abraham's offspring are thus the product
of a promise, and therefor c. "we" -as in the collective sense of "both we
Jews and you gentiles"- are all children of that same promise if we too lay
claim to them through the belief that they will be delivered.

The disruptive verses on the other hand is radically different, and
interprets the passage as allegory. It really has nothing to do with the
progression of the former argument. Laid bare, the "allegory" looks like
this:

"24  Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from
Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25  Now Hagar is
Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is
in slavery with her children. 26  But [like Sarah] the Jerusalem above is
free, and she is our mother. 27 [...] 29  But as at that time he who was
born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the
Spirit, so it is now. 30  But what does the scripture say? "Cast out the
slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son
of the free woman." (Gn 21:10) 31  So, brethren, we are not children of the
slave but of the free woman"

The author is literally reversing the relationships of the entities involved
in the Genesis account! In short, he says that the children of Abraham are
not the Jews but "us". This looks much more like the product of polemic of a
later time than Paul's. Statements like "[Hagar] corresponds to the present
Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children" and "[just] as at that
time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born
according to the Spirit, so it is now" make me suspect a period after the
war of 66-70 when the author's party (gentiles still claiming those
promises, and perhaps privileges, associated with Judaism?) was being
rebuffed by natural-born Jews.

So, then, "Paul" has not resolved a dilemma here. Rather, I'd say that a
redactor has weaved his own alternative interpretation into the text of an
already existing letter, and -created- a dilemma! <g> Also, I do not see
anything about the "free" people of "Jerusalem" being personified in or by
Christ.

Regards,